Australian and UK Perspectives on Social Prescribing Implementation Research: theory, measurement, resourcing and discovery to ensure health equity

Australian and UK Perspectives on Social Prescribing Implementation Research: theory, measurement, resourcing and discovery to ensure health equity

Equality--Health aspects

Genevieve A. Dingle, Christina Aggar, Nikita Arslanovski, Thomas Astell-Burt, J. R. Baker, Ruthanne Baxter, Michelle Bissett, Mhairi Bowe, Eric Brymer, Alexandra Burton, Richard Byng, Julian Elston, Daisy Fancourt, Xiaoqi Feng, Emmanuel Fino, Rosanne Freak-Poli, Lydia Harkin, Daniel Hayes, Emma Hazeldine, Blerina Kellezi, Niamh McNamara, Leah Sharman, Clifford Stevenson, Juliet Wakefield, Katey Warran, Leanne Wells, Laura Wright, Yvonne Zurynski, Kerryn Husk

Health & Social Care in the Community

Vol. 2025

No. 1

2025

Hindawi, a Wiley imprint

Journal article

English

13652524

Open Access

There has been a rapid increase in the delivery of social prescribing globally in recent years. However, a lack of theoretical framework, the diversity of social prescribing interventions and outcome measures, a lack of ongoing resources to provide services equitably and a lack of coordinated research agenda make it challenging for practitioners to know how best to put social prescribing into practice. This paper summarises perspectives from 29 UK and Australian authors and sets a course for future social prescribing implementation in four key areas: theory, measurement, resourcing and equity, and discovery (big questions on the research agenda). Eight recommendations are made: (1) multilevel or systems theory frameworks should inform programme design and implementation; (2) methods should be developed in collaboration with participants and service providers; (3) a core set of outcome measures should be developed and complemented by framework-specific measures; (4) factors at multiple levels should be included to ensure a comprehensive understanding of the experience and value of social prescribing; (5) funding models should ensure that community sector organisations providing the programmes and services are well supported; (6) social prescribing stakeholders could advocate for equitable funding through dialogue and knowledge translation; (7) future research could focus on understanding barriers and enablers of engagement in social prescribing in marginalised populations; and (8) future research should focus on link workers’ and community workers’ experiences of social prescribing. Emphasising health equity and asset-based community development, our perspective positions social prescribing not merely as a response to individual health needs but as a catalyst for a broader societal transformation.

Haley Lesemann